RMS: No plain sailing for Novell

Sam Varghese
Tuesday, 28 November 2006 02:35

Opinion and Analysis

The Novell-Microsoft deal is set to come up against hurdles next year with the head of the Free Software Foundation, Richard M. Stallman, confirming that the organisation would use the terms of the next version of the General Public Licence to prevent Novell from using FSF-copyrighted software.

The licence, referred to as GPLv3, is scheduled to come into effect in March next year. There have been objections to the new licence from those in the open source camp, but the FSF, while admitting that the draft is not yet finalised, is unlikely to compromise on key changes from the existing licence, the very changes that are the major sticking points between the two camps.

While the terms free software and open source are often used as synonyms, there are fundamental differences - in order for software to meet the definition of "free", the FSF says it should provide four freedoms - freedom to run the program for any purpose; to study the source code and then change it if one wishes; helping one's neighbour and rights of distribution.

Stallman said the FSF would have no hesitation in using GPLv3 to nobble the deal. "Definitely! This deal is a threat to the freedom of the free software community, because its effect is to make GPL-covered software non-free in practical terms," he said.

There have already been concerns expressed that the deal violates section 7 of the existing GPL, version 2. The FSF's chief legal eagle, Eben Moglen, told CNET News earlier this month that if one made an agreement which required the payment of a royalty for the right to distribute GPL software, then it could not be distributed under the GPL. He said section 7 of the GPL made it obligatory for one to have, and also give everybody else, the right to freely distribute software without needing any additional permissions.

GPLv3 will insist that if someone sells a software binary then, since he or she is also required to provide the source, along with that comes a requirement to provide whatever it takes to authorise a recompiled version to run.